Redating matthew mark and luke
1:2-3), though each of their accounts would remain characterized by their experiences, personalities and life situation.As much oral and written sharing would be expected and desired (and was probably commonly practiced by disciples of teachers of the day), this accounts for the 46% verbal equivalency, and represents not plagiarism, but intelligent mutual conference and confirmation throughout the disciples’ history which would naturally be too complex to reduce to a simplistic paradigm of literary dependence.What accounts have been preserved, as one would expect, are precisely those that were recognized as being written by apostles (or those under their supervision and authority) as God-inspired Scripture (1 Tim. Mark is usually put first in the order by mainline scholarship, as they take it as an assured result of modern criticism that shorter accounts are more derivatively-fundamental than longer accounts (such as in Matthew).
The traditional, conservative viewpoint that has been assumed through most of Church history has been that the Gospels, while sharing a significant portion in common, represent fundamentally independent accounts, this being extensively evidenced by: (1) the multitude of varying details and word-order in parallel accounts of the same event, with their remarkably underived character and undesigned harmony, which necessitate a different first-hand witnessing and recording of that event;(2) this also necessitating an early recording and composition of the Gospels, along with the natural desire to provide a written testimony of the Gospel for the emerging Church and to meet the needs and demands thereof;(3) the variations in accounts of the same events in the separate Gospels often include details that only particular disciples would know, or had a reason to relate, in consistency with their individual personalities, circumstances and purposes.(4) variations of word-order and grammar in accounts with otherwise the same content show that the accounts were not simply transcribed-verbatim from previous sources.
Luke, also not one of the original disciples, but a close associate of the apostles according to the epistles, wrote relatively later and looked with due care into the accounts, as he describes his circumstance and purpose for writing in his prologue (Lk. e says that he received his information from numerous sources, namely: from those which were eye-witnesses ‘from the beginning’ and ‘ministers of the Word’ (perhaps Matthew and Peter, amongst the rest of the apostles, and others).